Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19940913 A)(V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13. 1994 After joint session with County Planning & zoning Commission which started at 4:00 P.M. Vice Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. Answering roll call were Steven Beuttow, Tim Mooney, Sara Garton and Jasmine Tygre. Marta Chaikovska, Robert Blaich, Roger Hunt and Bruce Kerr were excused. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Sara recommended that there be another work session on ADDs. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. WILLIAMS RANCH SUBDIVISION/PUD FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Jasmine opened the public hearing. Mary Lackner made presentation as attached in record. Sara: What is the maximum allowable FAR ? Mary: 3,660. Sara: Where does this 5,080 come up? Gary Wright: That was modified in 1992 when the code was changed on that. The code now reads for lots up to 9,000 it is 3,660. If the lot is greater than 9,000 feet it expands by 7 feet per hundred capping at 5,080. These lots average about 17,000 feet which averages for free market FAR about 4,000 feet. Sara: And then staff is recommending 90% of that 4,000, right? Wright: Yes. Tom Stevens made presentation. PUBLIC HEARING Cecil Lewis: In general I like the project and I am in favor of it. I was in favor of Centennial. I was in favor of Williams and I like what you have done on this. However, you want to access this lot from Spruce Street--from the dirt portion of--How are you going to prevent these people from accessing from that same street? PZM9 . 13 . 94 Stevens: We will just covenant the access. We need to do that as part of the 8040 Greenline Review as well in that the impacts of 8040 Greenline issues--I wouldn't be satisfied having people access off of that street. They are not in the covenants now. I think it should be. We need to restrict those covenants that provide restriction for those lots that say "Access must be driveway off of what we are calling Free Silver Drive". the deed from the Lewis: The access in here--this easement--does this an access any of these properties? Or is it just going to be that green-- Stevens: It will access no properties at all. Emergency use only. We were hoping that the design would be sufficient that it won't need a gate. Lewis: As far as this road is concerned are you planning to improve it in any way? Wright: There are some ownership issues that are unresolved. We believe we have the option of moving the road to some extent on our property. What we are hoping to do between now and any kind of activity taking place on that part of the project would be to have a meeting with the homeowners and seeing what they want and what they are willing to do. We are willing to contribute to some expenditure for the safety of that road. Stevens: As part of this process there are sections of that road that cross the property line on our property. We are going to grant easements as part of a housekeeping issue. Lewis: When Centennial was originally built it extended up into this area as well. And they turned down the project in this area because they said there were a lot of mine tunnels underneath this property. Has that been explored by this applicant? Stevens: Yes it has. There is one tunnel, the Cowanhogen Tunnel, which is the alignment that we have proposed for a 50 foot open space easement. It is several hundred feet deep and it was about an 8 foot tall by 4 foot wide tunnel. Nonetheless we have had our engineers look at it and they say there is not a potential of gloryholing on that tunnel. But just to be safe we are aren't putting anything over it. We are going to have it as open space. Lewis: Originally this was a 42 acre parcel of land. I would hope that any approval for this project or a portion of it will exclude any potential for further development. And I would hope that is stipulated in whatever approvals are made on this project. 2 PZM9.13.94 Stevens: This is the overall 42 acre parcel. We are going to the County right now to subdivide this off. That will be done prior to Council's final hearing. The remaining portion of land is also being reviewed by the County right now under a mine masterplan. That mine masterplan essentially identifies all these existing uses. It proposes to convert a non-legal--it is a bus--it is a night watchman's quarters that is now a bus into a real structure of 5,000 sqft. And that is it. There is a 9.9 acre building envelope that is identified as a natural historic registry. So nothing can be done in there. The remainder of the site is way too steep to build anything on. So the real concern is this 9.9 and through several mechanisms there will be no more development. Lewis: But you approval that development? have no objections to a stipulation as part of your would eliminate the potential for any further Wright: It is more complicated than that in that we are actually right now dealing with the EPA because that part of __?__ #2 has been determined to require certain mediation. We are entering into administrative order of consent which is a Federal order to perform certain work on the mine property over a 3 year period. There is a group of Stephan's friends who have formed a Colorado Corporation that is negotiating with the EPA right now that will acquire the other property. I don't have the authority to speak for them. Helen ?: I live down the street from this. I am very much in favor of this. I think it is amazing that they are still going to be able to do this with all long-term locals. I think the plan is a good one. I have seen a lot of employee housing go up in town and I think this has them all beat. I like the idea of a private developer being able to put in this kind of project. And I hope that that you give it your support. Hal Clifford: Tom, who wants you to reduce the landscaping on this and what is their rational? Stevens: The Parks Dept. They thought that it was going to get to be just too overgrown. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to them. I would really like to keep it the way it is drawn. Clifford: In regard to the ditch I understand your point. At the same time I like the City rules about trying to keep ditches open for character and historic character. I hope there is a way to keep it open as much as you can. 3 PZM9.13.94 If the roads being public have to be wider and have to have curb and gutter and sidewalk then I really oppose that. I think minimal pavement here is really going to help. And even roads that are "substandard" in terms of code would be great. I live in Centennial with 60 foot wide roads that are basically not necessary and yet add curb and gutter. If it takes being private roads to make it a narrow lane with no sidewalk and a little hard path through the woods I think that would be the way to be. There was no further public comment and Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing. 8040 GREENLINE DISCUSSION Tim: The 8040 is basically a free market component except for one little corner of the affordable housing component. with the covenants you are going to enact on the free market design and development, we are going to minimize the viewscape impacts of 8040. I push the limit on 8040. It pushes my limit. I really want everything below 8040 and I am glad we have an 8040. One of the things that I really like doing here is enforcing 8040 Greenline. In this case I think the project is too valuable and your awareness of 8040 is adequate for me. I am in favor of the project that I am going to go with 8040. I have no objections to it. Jasmine: The applicant's proposal is to reduce the FAR and then have them be 8040 approval assuming that the reduction in FAR and using the County methodology of height and bulk measurement will mitigate those problems. Stevens: Within our CC&R we have identified the direction and the style these homes had to go. Within the County code it identifies height and FAR and what people can do in terms of road cuts. what we have done is gone beyond that and said "If you want to stick with just that criteria--if you want to do the 20% reduction in your FAR towards helping out the criteria of 8040 Greenline, you don't need to come back. If you want to come back--you want to build to 100%--you have to take all the criteria of these approvals the CC&R, the neighborhood guidelines that are being created and the code in order to gain back that 20%. And at that point you still have to be able to prove that you are compatible with the neighborhood, etc". Tim: I don't think we are going to have people who will want to build massive homes here. They will be worried about reselling down the line on the biggest FAR that they can get on these lots. I think that they already realize that the home that they are going to build is philosophically encumbered by the AH zone and it is not 4 PZM9.13.94 going to be competing with a Starwood home or a Red Mountain home. Stevens: There is not one single free market home that is not directly across the street from AH. Jasmine: One of the things I find appealing about the applicant's proposal is that it gives people an incentive to build a smaller house which is one of the things we have been talking about for such a long time. Steve: I originally thought that the 15 lots should come back. But I am being persuaded otherwise. Wright: If everybody were to take advantage of 80% that we propose the average FAR would be 3,200sqft. Stevens: We are not interested in going beyond the 80%. We don't want to go through the process. 80% gives us a home that fits into the marketplace. We can't overbuild the area because we are right next to Centennial and we are right next to our own affordable housing. So to put a $6,000,000.00 home there we would just come out behind. To get a local into that home and get that home on the market for significantly less than the average price of a home in Aspen, we have been real conscious of what marketplace that home is going to fit into given the parameters that are placed upon it. And for us going beyond the 80% FAR doesn't do anything. It gets us into a price range that we don't think we will recover. So we want to build that 80%. Wright: The advantage is if someone wants to go over the 80% they have to come before some review board. GRADING Man sitting next to Stevens: Using drawings--This is the area where we have the greatest level of grading on site. This is right at the 8040 line. We can raise this road up and lesson the cut and steepen the grade here and here or we can leave it low and lesson the grade here and here. We can put it at a point where we don't have any cut. We are trying now to get the best compromise. Tim: The road cut to the 8032-8036 so then the actual homesite is still above that. So what we have to assume then is that there is going to be some kind of radical excavation in order to get a house in there on a flat spot. Stevens: Essentially what the house is going to have to do is step up. The house will have to step into the hill. And it may step up the hill on several different floors. 5 PZM9.13.94 Tim: Are you going to continue the same kind of covenants for the retaining wall behind the house that the road cut is now requiring? Stevens: None of the grading on the free market lots rely on just lay-back grading where you just sod it back and just keep going. So that will require retainage on all cut slopes in the free market lots. And I think that is right on the money. Tim: So that is part of the covenants we are getting. Mary said something about vegetation here. Man next to Stevens: Yes. That is fine. That is appropriate. In fact there is a recommendation on page 12 "Natural vegetation shall be preserved outside the building envelope to maintain natural character". That is really appropriate. Tim: I don't want an "Andre's Road". Stevens: We have graded an access to each of the free market lots. What we found out is that we do get into problems where we get into Starvation Road. So what we have done is pull access easements off lots so that the roads can share driveway and parallel grade coming in. We looked at that on each and every home. How do you get to the building and where it is required cutting across different lots? Wright: Every free market lot has a restriction on it's access right on the plat to eliminate the need for-- Stevens: Had we not done that we would end up with that situation. Wright: Whether by covenant or just a condition of this approval, yes, we agree and want to see that go onto the free market lots so that people do not do lay-back grade. I would like to leave the method of retaining up to the people because that is an extension of the architecture whether they want to do a concrete wall with stone face, a boulder wall--whatever. Jasmine: It seems to me--this group 8040 approval be amended that if they go over the 80%, they have to come in under the new 8040. That is the review. They have to come back under the 8040 which would give us more opportunity to do things other than move Aspen trees or a deck. Tim: If they don't have any kind of Grandfathering when this project started and they basically have designed this project with their financial nut hinging on having these free market units and now we--they can't even build one affordable housing unit until they know financially the project is whole and if they can't sell 6 PZM9 . 13 . 94 these lots--let's say they sell one and then it has the contingency that it goes before the 8040 Greenline Review and we say "You are at 8070 here and we are not going to approve that". Then the whole project isn't whole. Then they can't build any of their affordable housing. So to me this is what the whole door swings on. And if now we are going to go back and say that we are going to change the 8040 while these guys have been in the process for as long as they have been and we crop out one lot that doesn't comply with 8040 then the project is in jeopardy. I like the project. It all comes down to--if the City Council can publish in the paper what they will give the Super Block--a million dollars worth of extraction--and we can't focus on the needs of this project with a little bit of transparency, I don't know what any of us are doing here! Jasmine: I think the developers have made a very reasonable approach saying these are your building envelopes. These are approved. Here is where your driveway is and this is your building envelope and grade has to be calculated according to County regulations. I am willing to sign off on that. And I think a lot of us would be. People that buy the lot and say "I am aware that if I go over the 80% I have to go through additional review". What I am saying is the additional review then becomes more restrictive 8040. I would be willing to accept what the developers have proposed based on their representations. And if we can take the people who may want to go over the 80% and provide a mechanism for what we consider an appropriate review for those people who have been notified in advance I think that gives us that much more control over it. Tim: Driveways: Are they City streets or are they private streets and sidewalks? The crux of it is the nature of the development. To me it is not a sidewalk subdivision. I don't see concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street. I like this idea of these pavers. I don't object to those being used in the right-of-way. If there aren't identifiable walkways- -if they are round or square with grass growing around or through them or whatever--they can be groomed so that they are not asphalt, not paved. One of the things that I can remember bringing up was the idea of shortcuts. People naturally are going to cut through yards, cut through the trees. There are going to be natural paths, hiking paths that people can walk. I definitely think that in these hot spots especially where the mass transportation drop offs 7 PZM9 . 13 . 94 are we need real identifiable concrete. In some of these shortcuts, paths. walkways. outside They don't have to be kind of traffic flows, Steven: What we think works for this neighborhood is to have a hard surface approximately 5 feet wide on one side of all streets throughout the subdivision. In addition to the internal trail system and specifically in response to what you were just saying we have done a landscape plan to where the lawn is only around a limited portion of the house. The rest of it is native grasses so that those can be cut for shortcuts. This whole project is kind of linked by native grass so that there can be shortcut areas. There will be 3 different levels of walkways. Hard surface on one side of the road, the trail system which runs through along the ditch that gets people down to the RFTA stop and then the informal shortcut paths. Tim: I really think that the nature of this hard surface should be as soft as possible. To me the hardest surface is concrete. We need a softer surface. Jasmine: Something people can walk on without killing themselves- -unlike the mall bricks. That is the worst walking surface. Tim: To me the nature of this development is that--you can put them there but people are not going to use them. People are going to go where they have got to go. And the nature of these people for the most part are going to have their shoes in a back pack and their walking shoes on their feet. And we should put them where people are going to use them and need them. Stevens: You people have been very sensitive to the urban vs rural character. And it has been easier for us because we are all of the same belief that we need to, within reason, maintain the rural character. It has got to be suitable for a baby buggy or for a 6 year old with training wheels. We know that. Tim: It is a miner's camp. I remember talking to stephan about my vision of what was going on when you had Centennial garage doors coming down. It has come a long way. And I am really proud of it. So I think if staff can melt together what we are talking about here--I would like to see one side of the street as sidewalk. Sara: I want one side or the other. Leslie: The other thing that we want to prevent is what would happen in the west end when we don't have curb and gutter and 8 PZM9.13.94 sidewalks and people are doing their landscaping all the way down to the pavement or walls or other landscape features and boulders and stuff and they didn't have pedestrian surface. Stevens: I can see where that would be a problem. Tim: These free market units that run along the upper road if we can--I think we have control of the other side of the road. Stevens: What we would object to is having to build and create 60 foot ROWs so we have the width for public roads. My understand is if we don't do the City's ordained width they don't want it. Roth: I thought we proposed that there be a text amendment that variations in the design standards are permitted by Special Review and that, no, the Engineering Dept wouldn't object to a 40 foot wide ROW for this. Tim: I don't want it to turn into pothole heaven up because the homeowner's association doesn't want to. to see the City take responsibility for them. there either I would love Roth: If they set the dedication of ROW that is a project impact. But I think with the Engineering Dept and Public Works is inclined to recommend that these be public rights-of-way. It is really a simple text amendment just to provide for variations in design standards of Chapter 24 Section 7-104. Jasmine: I think the P&Z would just as soon have it be a public road. But we don't want it to be 60 feet wide. So your suggestion seems like the best way to deal with this. PARKING Tim: To me if the roads are going to be a lot more narrow than the 60 foot ROW then they are going to be the public responsibility that there can't be any parking on the streets. And so then we are going to have to require additional parking for guests. Stevens: We can do that. Tim: It seems to me that this kind of dumps everything out so that it goes this way. And I don't know if it wouldn't be wise to have some kind of an island here so that people can make the decision whether or not they are going to go up valley or go down valley to give some kind of turning point' here. Stevens: We can only do that from a grade standpoint. Right now it is on--we have to have 25 or 30 feet at 4% grade or 3% grade. And then go up to 8% as we actually turn the corner there to allow 9 PZM9.13.94 traffic to go either direction. The vertical amount of change that we have there needs a certain length. We have tried to bring that in at a 90 degree angle at the last 20 feet so that if you are sitting there at the stop sign--in fact the County favored most of the traffic going south. Sara: What about the improvements to Park then? What are we going to do to Park Avenue? It is a narrow little road. Roth: The traffic engineer did recommend widening the pavement on Park Avenue to 20 feet. There are conversations about some sidewalk on Park Avenue. I told Cris Caruso that about 10 years ago the Smuggler area was listed as needing 1.6 million dollars in improvements. That might have been sidewalk, storm runnoff, maybe even street lights. You have got busses on there and a lot of cars and bicycles. Sara: I am concerned with even dumping 5% more onto Park. Tim: A lot of those people, as to want to go back to the Jerome a hard turn there to come back. them down to even a more narrow come back along Cooper. That is the natural flow goes, are going downhill street anyway. There is And now we are trying to funnel funnel down Park getting them to like a trap to me. Sara: Somehow this project. recommendation the improvement of Park has to go hand in hand with It is a recommendation. It is not a condition. A to Streets and Roads Dept through City Council. Stevens: At the last work session with City Council one of the things we discussed are outside impact fees. And Amy made it blatantly clear that there is work that needs to be done and that the City had an established policy that for annexation the developer pays their share. We don't know exactly what that means. In fact that is a little terrifying to us but it seems that there are certain areas of Park and certain work that was recommended by traffic study that the City will probably require us to pay 5% of. And that seems appropriate. Now when the City comes up with 95% that is really beyond our control. But it only helps everybody if we can make it happen. Mary: RFTA has not yet commented on actual dollars that they think this project will have. They have got some transit impact stuff they have been doing on the Highlands projects that they are going to plug into this project to get numbers of what 50 units will put on the RFTA system. I talked with the school district last week and they have looked at per unit impact on the school system. That will range between 13,500 dollars to 17,000 dollars as an impact. What staff will be 10 PZM9.13.94 doing with City Council is running through what all of these off- site impacts are and the fees and what the applicant is asked to be raised. The school district and RFTA stuff is not codified as an impact fee. Sara: You are asking for a park waiver tonight-- Stevens: Technically we are asking for a park to be waivered. What we are proposing to do instead is spend far more than what the impact fee would be to construct the Molly Gibson. I guess the technicality is that it is really not on City property. Mary: That is a technicality that it is not going to be deeded back to the City because that is a specific requirement. You can build a park to be deeded to the City. That is going to be an issue if City Council finally decides they are going to give a park fee waiver or not. There could be several options. We could waiver on your park fee for affordable housing. You can build off site or dedicate park plans on the value equal to that of your park dedication fee. So those are some of the procedures we ask the applicant to address. Show us our cost breakdown. If this park costs more than park fee waiver and City Council just has to know just who is going to hold the deed to it. Is it going to be the County or the City? Stevens: Our understanding is that the City doesn't want this because of the--if the County then is left holding the bag because even in the County' s- -the EPA has a right to come back in and determine additional work that is necessary. It is kind of a situation as a win, win, win. It is important to us because it is our front door. It is going to help establish the value for the free-market lots. It is important to the affordable housing. It is important to Centennial because it is an amenity. It is something that Centennial doesn't have now. And we feel a strong obligation to provide for the affordable housing people. DITCH Tim: I would love to see the ditch stay open and have it fenced with some kind of split rail kind of thing that would really make it very difficult to get into the ditch by a 3 year old and have the ditch be open. But I am sure that there are issues that I have to look at that the ditch is culverted all the way to this one spot. So the Ditch Association basically doesn't mind that. They don't lose evaporation. Stevens: It is open through that park that we are proposing. 11 PZM9.13.94 Tim: And I can see the construction aspect of it. It is a liability in that if it ever does overflow it can impact the houses. I think we are dealing with this project on a major scale that we are looking at it not to comply with what the Aspen Area Community Plan wants to do with open water. To culvert the ditch is OK with me. I think that this might be one of those instances as to the health and safety factor. So practicality factors to me mean that the ditch goes underground. Mary: Maybe culvert but maintain a small irrigation portion of it to keep the character of the ditch in this part of town but make it less volume. Stevens: We can look at that. We could culvert the dangerous part of that and create a creek. We have got to get permission from the Ditch Company and they can say "no". We will pursue this. We could bring a ditch like the size over at West Hopkins and make it a creek just to keep as an amenity and then drop it into the main ditch. Tim: If you do get to do the Molly Gibson Park--for me, and I live in this area and I run up the Smuggler all the time, 2 volley ball courts kind of overdoes it. They have a thing where they have work-out stations. They have sit up boards. They have pull-up boards. They have crunch things. And you can go around these different stations. Maybe within the area of one of those volley ball courts just for the people who are running Smuggler and walking Smuggler you can have one of these station-by-stations. They are rustic things. They are made out of railroad ties and pipes and it is almost like a play-yard kind of workout thing. Stevens: We are really in a catch-22. We have one group that wants a basketball court. We have another group that thinks a swimming pool would be great. We have another group that thinks 2 picnic tables are plenty. We would like to be able to get rid of those tennis courts and the basketball court and put in something more passive. Tim: Well, I like an active park there. anything in that area. I know that there pickup games there. I can see a couple of games going on. I know that there isn't are guys who would have 2-man, 4-man volleyball Then I am OK with the reduction from 54 to 50. I think that that is a great bargaining tool to take to City Council. And I think that eliminating the mass of the multi-family structures at the bottom creates a community kind of feeling that I would really appreciate. To me this does go in stages. The density of Centennial then is stepped back to the affordable housing units and 12 PZM9.13.94 then it is stepped back to the free market units. That is a logical progression and that is a good plan. And if we had a chance to do a masterplan up in this area it might have looked like this years ago when Centennial was done. So I think there is a logical plan here. And I appreciate that flow. The commercial development is the engine that is driving the growth of this whole town. And for the City Council to waive a million- one in impact fees to one of the biggest commercial projects--to publish it in the paper that they think that this commercial project isn't pro-growth and they are willing to put more money in the developers of commercial growth. I am willing to recommend to Council that your off-site impact fees and your RFTA fees and your water tap fees are eliminated. I think that your RO mix is great and I definitely think that because of the AH zone and the balance and the mix that you have and the balance and the plan for this whole area that you are exempt from GMQS and you are Grandfathered in to all the stuff that we can give you. Tim Malloy, Planning: One of our big issues is what happens to the RO guidelines. They have been in development for a long time. We made the mistake of relying that they would be based on the recommendation from the Housing Authority and-- Tim: I will cut through the tape. I really think that you should have half--basically follow the guidelines of 150 thousand and 400 thousand and half that has reduced or unlimited or has soft restrictions placed on it. Make it so that it is some pie in the sky thing because I really think that there are perfect examples of people who need to live in a community setting like this who lived here 25 years. And maybe they are getting penalized that they can't afford something in pitkin Green or even Cemetery Lane but they can afford this and by these guidelines they don't qualify. I think we should be as lenient as possible to allow as many qualified employee people to have a roof over their head and be able to have a family here as possible. Jasmine: I agree. Also if we go along with your system of doing the half being the more restrictive and half being unrestricted it really does give a good test case. Because one of the things we have been going through with the RO is that nobody really knows. Now you have had a better response because of people who are actually interested in buying these units. But I think that if we can make some of that information available to the Housing Authority and to City Council and to the County P&Z this may help us with our RO. 13 PZM9 . 13 . 94 Stevens: The reality is we can make some money on RO if it has $300,0'00 and asset limitation of $800,000 caps. And that money at this point we are looking to put back into the category 2. In my meetings with the Housing Authority was that we will give you some ROs to help offset the cap 2s where we know you are going to lose some money. Well, if you look at our proposed program we are proposing to do ROs up to a purchase price of $325,000 right now. Well, I can tell you we can't sell $325,000 RO units with the asset income guidelines of $150 and $400. And we really do appreciate your recommendation that you want to include-- Sara: The down side of splitting ROs that I have a concern with- -will you have resale on these? Stevens: There will be a 4% inflation factor. I have attended many, if not all, of the RO meetings for several years now. And I keep thinking of the sign I see in Boogies that says "Service, Price, Quality--Pick any Two". I think one of the things we are picking here is asset income. We are picking one of the wrong ones. What we need to do is control it by length of employment in the community. We need to control it by 80% or 90% of your income being earned within the community and follow-up by tax return. We need to control it by size. I really like the proposal that Mayor Bennett made which was 2,000sf net liveable not including up to 5 or 6 hundred in a basement and 5 or 6 hundred in a garage with the theory that somebody that has got 8 million dollars is not going to want to live that way. And it is not going to be a second home because of the other restrictions. Jasmine: And the other thing we talked about too is you pay taxes here. You vote here. I think what we have to say is that the RO regulations have not been finalized yet. P&Z has no objection to the applicant's doing half of the ROs without income restrictions provided they meet other qualifications of the RO-- Tim: I would vote to recommend to City Council that they undertake the proposal of the developer. Stevens: I would like you to consider recommending to Council that half the units have all current RO restrictions except income and half the guidelines and the other ones be consistent with the current RO guidelines. Mary: The City has a current household income restriction of $150,000 gross, net assets at $400,000 for their RO guidelines. 14 PZM9.13.94 Wright: Then they have got unit size. They have got ? apartments, primary residence. I am very comfortable with all of those except A, household income and B, net assets. What I am asking for is that half the units there be no household income restriction. I don't think Tim's is an unreasonable thing-- $300,000 gross and $800,000 net assets if you would feel more comfortable with it that way. Leslie: You are suggesting half. Wright: Half the units. Mary: These guidelines with half the units and then the other half could be-- Jasmine: All of the RO restrictions to apply. Stevens: And of all the people that we have talked to I don't know anybody that this plan would preclude it. Wright: One of the people that have complained with the increase in value of real estate in this community is you can have a realtor that has one great year and sells one 3 million dollar home--he is over $150,000 for that one year. 8040 GREENLINE MOTION Recommended language: I move to approve 8040 Greenline Review for Lots #1 through #15 subject to the following conditions; Lots #1 through #15 are approved for 8040 Greenline Review. Lot #15 saying exactly the same. The floor area for the free market parcels shall be 80% of what is permitted in the AH Zone District and shall be restricted to the building envelopes depicted by the developer. Any purchaser wishing to build more than the subject to re-review of 8040 Greenline Approval P&Z and subject to the newer more restrictive Greenline Review in effect at that time. 80% FAR will be before Aspen City criteria of 8040 Number 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be the same. Wright: One change to new #2--that is what is permitted in AH zone district you said "restricted to the building envelope" and "access depicted on final plat". Sara: Condition #5 doesn't apply-- 15 PZM9.13.94 Tim: I think we can say landscaping and the layback. Jasmine: I think that's in #8. Stevens: Some method of retainage. Jasmine: Why don't we just say that retaining systems used shall maintain natural appearance. Mary: Engineered foundations for those houses that building permits. Then #4--Tom and I have talked about that we should just get a verification letter. It will be a condition "It shall be submitted prior to first reading at the City Council". A ? mitigation shall be more thoroughly addressed by technical exper~ It shall be submitted prior to first reading. Tim: There were some 8040 things that we made reference to that the homeowner's association was going to get protective covenants. We can say that "Whatever representations as to homeowner covenants made in connection with 8040 Greenline Review shall be considered a condition of this approval". Wright: Another way you may want to do it is just to say that "The homeowners association CC and Rs will be consistent with the Phister Guidelines". And although I accept that they haven't been proven I think that is the best we have to do right now. So we are going to add a new condition--"The homeowner's association covenants and conditions and restrictions shall have architectural review consistent with the Phister Guidelines". Tim: I think according to all the references you made that are on the record I think you volunteered that already as far as I am concerned. Sara: I so move. Tim seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE Steven, yes, Sara, yes, Tim, yes, Jasmine, yes. MOTION SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING Sara: I move to accept the parking and open space for the application and ask that the 8 additional parking be added--2 per unit and no on-street. 16 PZM9.13.94 Jasmine: Why don't we specify. We are approving the Special Review for parking of 2 spaces per unit and no on-street parking and 8 guest-parking spaces on the parcel. Tim seconded the motion with everyone in favor. MOTION OPEN SPACE Wright: One of the things we would be hopeful that you would do is permit the open space that we have proposed to be private remain as front yards and accept our proposed donation of the park area. The reason that that is important is since there is no open space required by Special Review if we offer a donation and it is accepted there are some tax benefits to us potentially. Tim: I think it should be their front yards and I think it should be separate from Centennial's access to it and I think that this park is something substantial. Leslie: People provide open space all the time that they think is private open space. But we also felt that for a waiver of park dedication fees that we will want this as public open space. Tim: Well, what public is going to use it? People from Centennial are going to walk their dogs there and I don't think that is the proper use. To me it is only the people who are living on that Court turn-around they are going to wonder up there. It is mostly the people that are coming down to get to the access. Wright: We are really concerned with what I believe has just been incredibly irresponsible on Centennial's part with dog shit. It is not that we want to exclude the public. We want to be able to exclude the public if there is a problem. We don't want the people who live in those homes to have this be used as Centennial's dog area. The public easement goes along the Salvation Ditch more or less. Stevens: If the Ditch doesn't agree and doesn't want the trail alongside it, we will move the trail from alongside it. Wright: And I have dealt with this for years in 8040 Greenline. There has been a long-time plan for a trail to go as far as possible along the Salvation Ditch. And I think it is really important we do everything we can to support that plan. If the Salvation Ditch people think it is too close to the ditch we will move the alignment far enough away. 17 PZM9.13 . 94 Tim: It is a matter of the integrity of the lifestyle of these people that live in these houses for me. Jasmine: I think a public trail through there though is something they have to put up with. Tim: I do too. But I still think there should be some private aspect to the front yards of these houses even though there is a public trail going through it. Stevens: If there is a public trail--it is on the plat. You buy the house. You know it is there. What is not on the plat is, yes, somebody can come up there and throw a frisbee for their dog and the dog can occasionally run up on my porch. You can't identify that kind of stuff. That is why we want to keep it private. Wright: I request that if you would be willing to make your resolution along the lines that you will accept a donation of the park that is shown on the westerly corner and leave the remaining open space as private with the trail as shown. MOTION PARK AND TRAIL Sara: I so move. Tim seconded the motion with all in favor. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBDIVISION REZONING, GMQS EXEMPTION, FINAL APPROVAL. (PAGE 28 IN MEMO ATTACHED IN RECORD) Jasmine: Why don't you tell us which ones you have problems with. Stevens: #l--a. is fine, b. is fine. c. you will get, topography and a boundary survey--each purchaser will get a survey of their lot as part of their closing so they will have that. c. is OK. d. Free market units shall provide one parking space per bedroom. That was part of the parking. Wright: We don't have a problem with that as long as that includes whatever garage and stack parking for a single family unit. Roth: A boundary survey with corner monuments. Wright: It will read "corner monuments shall be prepared". Stevens: So d. is OK. use existing grades definition. We will e. is OK. f. We have already said we will to calculate height and use County's use the existing topography today as 18 --,,=~--~ PZM9.13.94 represented by existing grades for the establishment of height of the buildings. Wright: Just say "Using pitkin County's definition for determining heights shall be used for the project". I think we have covered g. Can that be eliminated? Mary: No. This is different. Under PUD is driveways that--slope to your driveway within your setback has retaining walls more than 30 inches that would require a PUD variance or a Board of Adjustment variance. But if you know that certain driveways are going to require that in the front yard you should request that right now through your PUD process so you don't have to go through Board of Adjustment. Stevens: Actually I don't know that we will require that. I can certainly see how that might be. What I would be inclined to do is ask for that variance now. Mary: What we want to hear is which lot you were requesting that variance on. Stevens: We might be able to do that in advance of Council. Thennh. is OK. Number 2. That is fine. Mary: pedestrian paths shall be defined on the plat. Wright: Yes. Roth: And these will be public ROWs on the sidewalks. I don't think it should just be in the covenants. I think it should be in the approval. Sara: Will this be part of the homeowner's association? Wright: There will be 2 separate homeowner's associations. Sara: I recommend you do it with the homeowner's association. Then the homeowners association is ultimately responsible. They can designate too and get the property owners to do it. Stevens: #2 b goes away. c. I tell you what we looked at alleys on the back side of these things. But by the time we did the width necessary for an alley and parking, being able to turn into a garage, they didn't fit. So our next option was to share driveways coming in and key them off. And they didn't fit. So it really 19 PZM9.13.94 kind of pushed us toward a more conventional plan. If somebody could figure out a way to accomplish that, we have not been able to. We would sure listen to them. Much talking by everyone over plans-- Jasmine: Applicant shall continue to attempt to redesign the parking to minimize the auto dominance appearance. Tim: Explore the possibility of using other hard surface treatment to make it a softer element. Wright: Do you think it would be helpful if our driveway were asphalt instead of concrete or The new colored concrete. Tim: Sometimes it is pavored. Sometimes it is gravel. Sometimes it iSn Stevens: Where a whole driveway can be just 2 tracks and there is grass in-between. Tim: That is what I was talking about. according to grade and if you know that it would satisfy that for me. You can put that in is going to work. That Wright: So we change the line "The applicant shall add out- buildings for trash and storage areas and work to redesign the parking layout to reduce the auto dominance appearance of this project." Stevens: Number 3 is fine. -a. b. c. are fine. And d. about before. All of number 4 is fine. Number 5- addresses the RO issue that we talked Wright: "Shall have income limitation of $300,000 and asset limitation of $800,000." Stevens: Number 6 goes away. #7 is OK. #8. That reason we bring that up is because we on an upper that we are really having a hard time --and we residential purposes but you add sprinklers to pressure we have to deal with to provide. is fine. The pressure zone did that for that it adds If we can work out to the fire marshal's statis, satisificationn I get real stupid after 8: 30- -the issue water pressure then could we eliminate that? statis, of the Mary: No. He was adamant about that. 20 PZM9 . 13 . 94 Stevens: He was adamant about the homes that were on the pressure zone--that was the pressure points on these sprinklers. But not below that area of elevation. Mary: He wanted the entire project to be sprinkled. Tim: I would agree that if you can rework this so that it works for both staff and you. It might mean the whole project. Stevens: #13 -- #9 is fine. #10 is fine. #11 is fine. #12 is fine. Wright: Should say "The allowable floor area for the free market parcels shall be 80% of what is permitted in the AH zone without 8040 Greenline Review". Tim: And we should add "If above 80% then they go back for the complete 8040 Review of what is in effect at that time." Wright: addressed Council." #14. Rockfall mitigation shall be more thoroughly by a technical expert prior to first reading by City #15. "Lots #1 to #15 shall have engineer evaluate the site conditions to recommend foundation design before building permit review. II Stevens: question. no problem. #16 is fine. #17 is fine. #17 b. We just have a If you are talking about the final plat package we have If we are talking about the final plat map-- Decision was made that final plat package would be correct. c. is fine. d. Court. We would on map) This also applies to the driveway called Williams really prefer to keep that at 14 feet. (He showed Mary: It is a request from the Fire Marshal. So I would recommend that we keep it in. Stevens: I would think if he has pullout capabilities it is going to be OK with him. Maybe we will convince him to that affect. Jasmine: Then we will leave this as it is. Stevens: The rest of these are fine down to j. And j. has reference to the sidewalk. I don't know how you want to word that. Roth: Hard surface, pedestrian path or whatever. 21 PZM9 . 13 . 94 Mary: It can be 5 foot pedestrian path. k. We can take care of right now. It is Free Silver Drive. 1. Is fine. m. Is fine. n. Before the project is paved we will be able to extend the service line into the deed restricted portion so that would be taken care of. Then we are fine all the way down to u. And I just have a question on that. Are all the other residents of this particular area required to do the same thing? Leslie: Everybody who goes through subdivision this has been a requirement. Wright: We are fine to #19. People that have the free market units can't take advantage of the ADU provisions? Leslie: Wright: Leslie: Right. Can they come in for Special Review? No. mumble Stevens: We are fine all the way down to #22. Wright: We need to add some language there. "Prior to first reading by City Council, the applicant shall redesign the Salvation Ditch alignment to add a stream ___?___ covered with a 230 foot culverted section. Stevens: If we can do a stream, we would love to do it if it is engineeringly feasible. Tim: All I am asking is according to the building limitations that you have it will pertain and that you will document them as soon as possible. All you have to do is show that the partnerships are working in the 2 different directions that you made reference to. And that you do or don't have the ability to get them to commit or not to commit. Wright: We have a shareholders meeting coming up somewhere before the end of the month because we have got to go through a formal shareholder's meeting in the new company to pass a resolution to authorize me to sign administrative order and consent with the EPA. Mary: You could make a condition of approval that prior to first reading by Council the applicant shall pursue a covenant rights restriction on the County line __?__' Wright: Again I am concerned with what Is it development to work toward contemplated and having to restore and further development means. the masterplan that was recreate ? 22 PZM9.13.94 Roth: Residential development beyond accessory uses. Tim: I like that because I like the concerned neighbor don't want to see 9 one-acre homesites covering up the horizon. Wright: I cannot imagine ever being able to get the lead levels on that property such that anyone would live there for any price. Page 24. Roth: "To allow variations in the standards of Chapter 24-7-100." Mary: Restriction only 1 lot in which lot mumble Wright: Oh yes. That is fine. MOTION Sara: I move to recommend to City Council approval of the Williams Ranch Affordable Housing Final Development Plan for subdivision, rezoning, GMQS exemption and final PUD, subject to the conditions outlined in the September 13, 1994 memorandum from the Planning Office to the Planning Commission with the additional conditions and amendments. Tim seconded the motion with all Meeting was adjourned. Time was in favor. 8:55,~' Janice 23